If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

One thing that I loved about 4e’s Power Sources and Roles was that it made class bloat a non-issue to me. For me, the problem with bloat is not that it provides too many options. I’m perfectly comfortable laying out what options are and are not suitable for a given campaign. My issue is when the options don’t feel justified.

To unpack that statement a bit, my design philosophy is that a new element should always occupy the smallest amount of design space it can in order to accomplish its design goals. To put it in D&D terms, never do with a class what you could accomplish with a subclass; never do with a subclass what you could accomplish with a feat. A lot of classes in Pathfinder feel like they’re in the game to allow for a very specific character concept, like a Gunslinger, or a very specific mechanic, like “dual-wielding” with a Spell in one hand instead of a weapon. But do you really need a whole class worth of rules just to be able to play a guy that fights with guns, or attack with a melee weapon and cast a spell in the same turn? What about a Feat chain that gives you cool maneuvers you can do with guns, or a 5-level Prestige Class that gives you the gish mechanics you want in a smaller package? Especially when a lot of the mechanics fall into one of a small number of baseline patterns (leading to shorthands like “half-caster” and “full BAB progression”), I feel like it would be much cleaner to have a much smaller number of classes with more customization options to express those interesting concepts and mechanics instead of whole new classes?

Hmm, I never thought about it like that. It's an interesting reasoning and I'm not saying it's without merits.

I think, ultimately it boils down to how deep do you want to go with a concept? Yes, a lot of classes' essence could be grabbed like that, accentuating the few key features only, to keep it simple. However, it's not necessarily the goal. Sometimes you'd want to fully flesh out a concept.

Like, the gunslinger in PF. Yes, in a nutshell, give a fighter a proficiency with firearms and cook up some mechanic which gives advantage tied to derring-do, or some skill check, dunno. On higher levels, give it some kind of marksmanship, improved critical, whatnot. Done. It's doable, totally.

However, the PF class does a lot more, has a ton of interesting features, an unique mechanic, maneuvers, etc. It allows to delve into the archetype a lot more deeply. Is it necessary? No. But it's a hell of a fun!

Same with the Magus. Casting as an off-hand weapon is one thing, it's a signature ability. however, it comes with tons of possibilities with the arcana options.

In 4e though, a class always felt justified as a full class to me, as long as it had a unique combination of Power Source and combat Role. I didn’t mind having separate classes for, say, a druid and a shaman, because even if they were similar in concept, they each had a very clear design rationale that couldn’t have been satisfied with something smaller like a chain of Feats. And with Essentials introducing Subclasses and secondary power sources and roles, you had a formula for a ton of class “bloat” that didn’t feel bloated at all. Fighter became the Class for Martial Defenders, with subclasses that allowed you to branch out into being a secondary Striker, or Leader or something. It would have been even better if, say, Paladin had gotten rolled into that as the Martial Defender with secondary Divine abilities, for example. I think that’s how I’d design a spiritual successor to 4e.

I hope the above didn’t come off as too specifically critical of 3e and Pathfinder. That was certainly not the intent; it was just an easy counter-example to 4e’s use of very explicit design rationale to justify its bloat. I could have just as well used another game as an example. Actually, CofD might have been a good one. Much as I love it, CofD has some serious bloat problems, which could similarly be addressed with some clearer design rationale.

Again, interesting thoughts about justified bloat in 4e. I think I get where you're coming from with that. Again, I think it boils down to how deep do you want to go with a concept, an archetype? The PF classes are really good examples, not just the aforementioned ones, but for example the ones in the Advanced Class Guide. Those are deliberately classes which came into being by mixing up two, or three existing class. Are they necessary? No. But again, they delve into a concept more deeply mechanically (and in conjunction, fluff, but that could be quite subtle indeed) and sometimes that is a lot more close to the kind of character one want to play.

Connecting to this, I think I mentioned somewhere above that, to me, PF is a class-based game, which has soooo many classes, myriads of archetypes, hybrid classes, feats and such that it is nearly a classless system. Maybe that's a part of why I like it. Generally, I prefer classless systems, because they make possible that I can build the character exactly as I envisioned it. PF provides that through sheer bloat of options and going through with even seemingly minor concepts. I understand that it isn't a good thing for everyone, but that's one of the main reasons why I prefer it above 5e. The later is really the good enough edition of D&D. In PF I can cook up the character totally in line with my concept which would be progressing through its whole career with that concept. In 5e, I can find a close enough version, which gives only a fraction of that extrapolation, but more-or-less parallels the concept. Slap on it some window-dressing and again, close enough to enjoy. Really, it's just a personal preference about mechanical and conceptual depth, regarding the character concept you want to play.

There were some discussion, if I remember correctly, when 5e was under development (maybe even a playtest version), about rolling all the classes into the 4 core class of old D&D (fighter, thief, magic user, healer) and making all the other subclasses. The ranger and the paladin are famous argument points in that. I can understand the appeal of that style of game, it's certainly simpler. However, it's just too much generalization to me, while 5e is gives just enough mechanical differentation to concepts to remain justifiable to me.

Also, I think that the absence of new classes won't stop bloat. Why there isn't bloat yet, is more because f the glacial releasing schedule. Given time, there will be tons of subclasses and at that point, if I could choose, I'll still go with either a classless system, or the PF method, because If I get bloat anyway (something that doesn't bothers me, mind you), I'd prefer exploring my character concept more deeply and having more toys to play and customize with to that concept.

Edit: accidentally, given it a second thought, I think the same was one of my problems with the CofD 1e subsplats, like bloodlines. On the surface, I liked the idea of having tons of bloodlines and creating my own, etc. However, the clans felt too generic ( I know, it was intentional, "clans as archetypes" and all that, it's a totally viable approach, It's just personal taste) and the bloodlines, I didn't felt they explored my favorite concepts from Masquerade as deeply as I was used to and also they didn't have much pull in the setting.

Comment

Class bloat, or subclass bloat, is mostly a necessity in D&D, due to how suffocatingly restrictive the class/level+feats model is. Especially for non-magical classes. You can create new content for spellcasters just by creating new spells, but no such luck for less magical types. 4E's source/role model is a way to deal with it, and it does help, but that edition also doubles down on the attitude that you can't do something without a power telling you that you can. 5E's subclasses are good, but since the class list is still the same old mess without rhyme or reason... well.

The claims of PF's "variety" always seem suspect to me, given how many hoops you have to jump through in order to make some fairly basic concepts work. PF's approach to material is reminiscent of Orks or Imperial Guard - throw enough of it at a problem and it'll work out somehow. But too bad if you're a casual or new player and want to run a character concept the basic classes don't support...

Comment

4E's source/role model is a way to deal with it, and it does help, but that edition also doubles down on the attitude that you can't do something without a power telling you that you can.

This has been one of the most common critiques of 4e (right after “all classes play the same way”) from the beginning, and it’s not at all supported by the text. Players are every bit as capable of improvising actions in 4e as they are in any other Edition. Anyone who has had a bad experience playing 4e, where they described a cool move they wanted to do and the DM said, “sorry, you can’t do that because you don’t have a Power that lets you”, that was the DM’s fault, not 4e’s.

Comment

There are ultimately a lot of sacred cows in D&D, and 4th edition was a serious attempt at killing many of them. However 5th edition resurrected many of those cows and it's pretty clear they're here to stay. Stuff like the class system, with your Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Wizard and then every other class being some kind of variation on those (Paladins are a sort of fighter/cleric, druids are a sort of cleric, Rangers are a sort of fighter/druid, etc) are just going to be a part and parcel of D&D and its spinoffs (like Pathfinder) forever.

Between all of the classes, archtypes and prestige classes, I find that Pathfinder probably has the most character options and variety of any D&D system yet, though it's pretty obvious why. RPG companies are out to make money, and putting out new classes or new sub-classes tends to sell books. Paizo's most successful books are the ones that have classes or useful character options in them. This gives Paizo an incentive to keep pushing out new classes, archetypes, etc for Pathfinder.

2 likes

Comment

This has been one of the most common critiques of 4e (right after “all classes play the same way”) from the beginning, and it’s not at all supported by the text. Players are every bit as capable of improvising actions in 4e as they are in any other Edition. Anyone who has had a bad experience playing 4e, where they described a cool move they wanted to do and the DM said, “sorry, you can’t do that because you don’t have a Power that lets you”, that was the DM’s fault, not 4e’s.

Playing devil's advocate here, I'd like to explain why my group ended up feeling that it actually was 4e's fault rather than mine (as I was the DM) that the players felt like they couldn't meaningfully improvise actions.

When they were playing, they first felt they needed to see if one of their powers already did what they were thinking of trying. So they'd check their list. Then they'd improvise their action... but if they were trying anything that a power that existed did, it felt like a "cheat" to them to not have taken that power but still do the thing that was the point of taking that power. So they'd really only feel like they were "supposed" to be improvising things that no powers actually covered, which are a very narrow list of things and also hard to be sure of because there were so many powers that did so many things.

Then came the things they did try to improvise, and what felt "fair" to set up the mechanics as - which left us all thinking an improvised action shouldn't be as-good or better than using a limited power (encounters & dailies) because then their would be no point in having or using those powers, but shouldn't be worse than an at-will power or their would be no point in improvising in the first place... and that was a very tricky place to sit an action.

Which all added together into the feeling that the system didn't actually encourage improvisation even though it didn't actually forbid it either. So while from one perspective we were "every bit as capable of improvising actions in 4e", from another perspective it was a much more difficult and cumbersome process for us.

Not so noble anymore.

5 likes

Comment

Playing devil's advocate here, I'd like to explain why my group ended up feeling that it actually was 4e's fault rather than mine (as I was the DM) that the players felt like they couldn't meaningfully improvise actions.

When they were playing, they first felt they needed to see if one of their powers already did what they were thinking of trying. So they'd check their list. Then they'd improvise their action... but if they were trying anything that a power that existed did, it felt like a "cheat" to them to not have taken that power but still do the thing that was the point of taking that power. So they'd really only feel like they were "supposed" to be improvising things that no powers actually covered, which are a very narrow list of things and also hard to be sure of because there were so many powers that did so many things.

Then came the things they did try to improvise, and what felt "fair" to set up the mechanics as - which left us all thinking an improvised action shouldn't be as-good or better than using a limited power (encounters & dailies) because then their would be no point in having or using those powers, but shouldn't be worse than an at-will power or their would be no point in improvising in the first place... and that was a very tricky place to sit an action.

Which all added together into the feeling that the system didn't actually encourage improvisation even though it didn't actually forbid it either. So while from one perspective we were "every bit as capable of improvising actions in 4e", from another perspective it was a much more difficult and cumbersome process for us.

I hear what you’re saying, and don’t wish to invalidate anyone’s experiences. That was certainly a common story among folks who wanted to improvise with 4e.

For me, trying to avoid improvising something that a Power already did is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Although Powers did have descriptive text, there’s no reason that you couldn’t, for example, try to shove an enemy away from you just because there’s a power that says in it’s descriptive text that you shove an enemy away from you. It seems from my perspective that people were worried about duplicating the mechanical effects of Powers with improvised actions, rather than duplicating their descriptive text. And in my opinion, it’s not the player’s role to determine the mechanical effects of an improvised action. As a player, you should be saying, “I try to shove the orc away from me” and leaving it to the DM to determine the best mechanics with which to adjudicate the results that Action. That’s why I say it’s the DM’s fault if they answer, “you can’t shove the orc away from you because you don’t have a power that lets you do that.” The DM should instead just work out a simple mechanic to resolve that. “Make an Athletics check against the orc’s Fortitude defense, and on a hit you can push him one square,” for example. Is that better, worse, or identical to a Power that exists in 4e? I don’t know. I’d probably guess it’s similar to but worse than some Power. But I don’t see that as a problem, any more than it’s a problem if you allow a player to determine if an object is magical with an Arcana check even though that is similar to the effect of the Detect Magic spell.

I think in this case it’s actually helpful to think of all Powers as spells. Players have a list of packaged mechanical effects they can choose to use, and they can also describe actions for the DM to adjudicate, just like wizards have been able to do from the very first version of the game. Just because a spell exists that does some damage and knocks someone prone, doesn’t mean the DM shouldn’t allow players to do damage and knock enemies prone without that spell.

To be fair, this way of thinking didn’t click for me for a long time either. It was because of Essentials shifting from Martial characters having at-will Attack Powers that did 1[W] damage and something else to Martial characters having at-will powers that modified their basic attacks to do that something else in addition to their normal damage that allowed me to grokk this concept.

Comment

When I mentioned 4E doubling down on restrictions, I didn't mean restricting improvisation. Like Charlaquin says, nothing says you can't improvise on top of your existing powers. And it is nice to be able to do things without magic other than "I hit/shoot them" without having to convince your GM to let you. What I meant was more character building. Like if you're not a ranger or a certain fighter option, you can't really dual-wield. You can't use a particular weapon unless your powers explicitly allow you to. Your stat choices are hard-locked on chargen even more than in other editions. And so on.

Comment

Although Powers did have descriptive text, there’s no reason that you couldn’t, for example, try to shove an enemy away from you just because there’s a power that says in it’s descriptive text that you shove an enemy away from you.

Shoving isn't a great example, since there was already an at-will power in the books that anyone could use that effected a shove (it being much like a basic attack action).

But the idea here stands all the same - you see no reason why my players couldn't say "I'm gonna rail that orc in the face with my shield, trying to cause him to stagger backwards off the bridge." and me adjudicate some kind of mechanics for that... and I agree, I can totally make that action work in basically every system I've ever played.

The difference is that with 4th edition I felt restrained - if I made the resolution of that action as good as using Tide of Iron (or any of the other similar powers) I was invalidating the existence of powers, but if I made the resolution of that action not as good as using Tide of Iron (or any of the other similar powers) I was invalidating improvisation because using any power would be a more potent choice than to improvise.

And in my opinion, it’s not the player’s role to determine the mechanical effects of an improvised action.

I should have been more clear about how I got the players' opinions on the topic. They were not improvising, not even a little bit, not even when I would put features into an encounter specifically because improvising with them might be fun (like fire pits, and spikes on the wall, chandeliers, and so forth). So I asked them why they didn't improvise, because it was strange considering how frequently they would improvise in other systems, and they told me how they felt regarding the existence of a power that does X feeling like they were being told "you're not supposed to be able to do X without a power."

Comment

Shoving isn't a great example, since there was already an at-will power in the books that anyone could use that effected a shove (it being much like a basic attack action).

But the idea here stands all the same - you see no reason why my players couldn't say &quot;I'm gonna rail that orc in the face with my shield, trying to cause him to stagger backwards off the bridge.&quot; and me adjudicate some kind of mechanics for that... and I agree, I can totally make that action work in basically every system I've ever played.

The difference is that with 4th edition I felt restrained - if I made the resolution of that action as good as using Tide of Iron (or any of the other similar powers) I was invalidating the existence of powers, but if I made the resolution of that action not as good as using Tide of Iron (or any of the other similar powers) I was invalidating improvisation because using any power would be a more potent choice than to improvise.

The point where we disagree is, I think, that I don’t see any problem with an improvised action being better or worse than Tide of Iron. Any more than I see a problem with picking a lock being better or worse than the Knock spell. Just because a codified way for you to do something exists in the rules doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to do that thing without using the codified method. It’s interesting to me that this doesn’t seem to bother anyone when it comes to spells. Everyone is fine with the fact that you can exactly reproduce the effects of Produce Flame with a torch and a tinderbox, but as soon as the codified mechanics you’re reproducing represent a nonmagical effect people are suddenly real worried about invalidating options. Myself included. I had exactly the same hangup until Heroes of the Forgotten Lands came along and introduced Hammer Hands - an at-will stance that made your basic attacks have the same rider as Tide of Iron while you were in it. Suddenly I didn’t care if someone could reproduce the effect of pushing someone and moving into their square without having Hammer Hands. Hammer Hands just gave you a guaranteed way to do that, just like Produce Flame gives you a guaranteed way to start a fire. And in retrospect, I realized it was silly of me to get hung up on invalidating Tide of Iron.

I should have been more clear about how I got the players' opinions on the topic. They were not improvising, not even a little bit, not even when I would put features into an encounter specifically because improvising with them might be fun (like fire pits, and spikes on the wall, chandeliers, and so forth). So I asked them why they didn't improvise, because it was strange considering how frequently they would improvise in other systems, and they told me how they felt regarding the existence of a power that does X feeling like they were being told &quot;you're not supposed to be able to do X without a power.&quot;

Ahh, gotcha. I was specifically referring to complaints I’ve heard where the opposite happened - players who were used to other editions and tried to improvise in 4e only to have the DM tell them no. If your players just weren’t improvising... Personally I don’t see a problem with that. I would assume they were happy to have options they could rely on to do interesting things without my permission. If on the other hand they wanted to improvise but didn’t feel like they could despite not having been told so, that does seem dissatisfying. Do they feel the same way when playing spellcasters in other editions?

Onyx Path Forum Moderator

My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

1 like

Comment

The point where we disagree is, I think, that I don’t see any problem with an improvised action being better or worse than Tide of Iron. Any more than I see a problem with picking a lock being better or worse than the Knock spell. Just because a codified way for you to do something exists in the rules doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be able to do that thing without using the codified method

You've actually just described multiple codified ways to do the same something, not the ability to improvise a non-codified way.

Pick the lock, knock spell, smash it with a hammer, pour acid on it, disintegrate the sum'bitch, and a whole list of other ways to get through a locked door are codified into the system - as a result, there really isn't much room left to improvise something genuinely not already covered by the rules, but at the same time, there also isn't much reason to improvise something since there are so many options already available. It's like if 4th edition powers weren't "you only get to pick this many" - then a player could "improvise" and the result could be an appropriate power being used. That's exactly why my group felt improvisation in 4th edition just didn't really work - the way in which everything was codified put a lot of "there's a dozen ways to do that" stuff into powers, which made it look like "there's only one way to do that; have one of those powers" instead of "there's a dozen ways to do that."

I would assume they were happy to have options they could rely on to do interesting things without my permission.

They, and I, weren't happy, but that's not down to just improvisation. At almost every turn, 4th edition was grating against our preferences, and the result was a less-than-stellar gaming experience. It was basically just incompatible with how we would normally play, so when push came to shove it was a choice of either completely changing how we play out our fantasy adventures, or playing something besides 4th edition, and we chose the easier way of getting back to having fun.

Do they feel the same way when playing spellcasters in other editions?

Nope. Spells and 4th editions powers are not even kind of related from our point of view, since the core "how shit gets done" of other editions is not "your character casts a spell."

It's the same reason that the whole complaint against 4th edition "everyone's a caster" doesn't make sense as worded, despite that somewhere buried in using the wrong terms to convey an idea might be an actually valid complaint against the high degree of similarity between classes from a design perspective (i.e. they all got the same sort of thing at the same level until later in the edition's life, even though that didn't actually result in the playing of different classes feeling like playing the same class).

I should mention, for complete fairness, that in other editions my players don't try to improvise spells - if they want a spell that's not in the game, they role-play their character creating that spell, and we work together on some mechanics for it. What they do is improvise actions, and utilize things that make those actions seem possible, which is a different thing even if the improvisation utilizes a spell. But they aren't doing anything that feel analogous to improvising an action and having the mechanics equivalent to a 4e power happen as a result.

Comment

You've actually just described multiple codified ways to do the same something, not the ability to improvise a non-codified way.

Pick the lock, knock spell, smash it with a hammer, pour acid on it, disintegrate the sum'bitch, and a whole list of other ways to get through a locked door are codified into the system - as a result, there really isn't much room left to improvise something genuinely not already covered by the rules, but at the same time, there also isn't much reason to improvise something since there are so many options already available.

I think you and I are using the word codified differently here. Can you give me an example of an action that does not involve magic and isn’t codified in the rules by this definition? That is to say, an in-character goal and approach to achieving that goal?

It's like if 4th edition powers weren't &quot;you only get to pick this many&quot; - then a player could &quot;improvise&quot; and the result could be an appropriate power being used. That's exactly why my group felt improvisation in 4th edition just didn't really work - the way in which everything was codified put a lot of &quot;there's a dozen ways to do that&quot; stuff into powers, which made it look like &quot;there's only one way to do that; have one of those powers&quot; instead of &quot;there's a dozen ways to do that.&quot;

Err... The way to do a thing in D&D (any edition) is to either select a class feature you have that says it allows you to do that thing, or to tell the DM, “My character tries to do the thing” and describe how your character tries to do the thing. Then the DM determines if a dice roll is needed to resolve your attempt to do the thing or not, and if so what dice roll. Powers were an example of the former, and the existence of the former does not preclude the ability to do the latter.

They, and I, weren't happy, but that's not down to just improvisation. At almost every turn, 4th edition was grating against our preferences, and the result was a less-than-stellar gaming experience. It was basically just incompatible with how we would normally play, so when push came to shove it was a choice of either completely changing how we play out our fantasy adventures, or playing something besides 4th edition, and we chose the easier way of getting back to having fun.

And that’s a perfectly reasonable choice to make. I am in no way trying to tell you you should have liked 4e or continue playing it despite not liking it. I’m just addressing a very specific complaint about 4e that I don’t think holds water.

Nope. Spells and 4th editions powers are not even kind of related from our point of view, since the core &quot;how shit gets done&quot; of other editions is not &quot;your character casts a spell.&quot;

The reason I am drawing a comparison to spells is to illustrate my argument that “your character uses a power” is not the core “how shit gets done” of 4e either.

It's the same reason that the whole complaint against 4th edition &quot;everyone's a caster&quot; doesn't make sense as worded, despite that somewhere buried in using the wrong terms to convey an idea might be an actually valid complaint against the high degree of similarity between classes from a design perspective (i.e. they all got the same sort of thing at the same level until later in the edition's life, even though that didn't actually result in the playing of different classes feeling like playing the same class).

I should mention, for complete fairness, that in other editions my players don't try to improvise spells - if they want a spell that's not in the game, they role-play their character creating that spell, and we work together on some mechanics for it. What they do is improvise actions, and utilize things that make those actions seem possible, which is a different thing even if the improvisation utilizes a spell. But they aren't doing anything that feel analogous to improvising an action and having the mechanics equivalent to a 4e power happen as a result.

I’m just trying to say that there’s no reason improvising an action in 4e shouldn’t work exactly the way you are describing improvising actuons here. Just because Powers exist doesn’t mean improvising an action has to look like improvising a Power.

Onyx Path Forum Moderator

My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

Comment

I think you and I are using the word codified differently here. Can you give me an example of an action that does not involve magic and isn’t codified in the rules by this definition? That is to say, an in-character goal and approach to achieving that goal?

Using 5th edition as an example: Physically causing a giant to trip and fall down. I.e. "I tie a rope to a firm post across the way and then hide, and when the giant is on their way charging past to get to [insert other character that is being a clear target to bait the giant], I'm going to yank the rope, which I've looped around another post over here for leverage, tight."

Doesn't take magic, though I'm sure there is a spell that would have the same "giant is prone" result, but is outside what the already codified rules cover as they only address the topic of shoving the giant to the ground with your own hands (and cover that by saying "nope, not happening.").

In 4th edition, that's the kind of thing that would show up in a written adventure not as a description of the scene having sturdy posts across a path from each other and a length of rope nearby, but as a "power" stat block that a character could engage with. So I'm not saying the same action couldn't get the same result in 4th edition - I'm saying that the way the game felt as a result of its presentation is different.

The reason I am drawing a comparison to spells is to illustrate my argument that “your character uses a power” is not the core “how shit gets done” of 4e either.

It'd have been nice if you'd have told that to the 4th edition rule books, since that's where I was given the idea that powers are the how shit gets done of the system - down to the fact that even the actions that were "I'm specifically not using a class power right not" like basic attacks or grabs were presented as being powers.

I’m just trying to say that there’s no reason improvising an action in 4e shouldn’t work exactly the way you are describing improvising actuons here. Just because Powers exist doesn’t mean improvising an action has to look like improvising a Power.

So you just don't even understand how someone could see doing what powers can do even if you don't have those powers as being a problem? Because that's the reason why improvised actions doing things already covered by powers didn't feel right for my group - like if any character in 5th edition could, without any limitation on frequency other than opportunity to care about doing it, deal 8d6 fire damage in a 20' radius area, how that might make it seem like fireball isn't a good spell to ever bother taking.

Or is it that you don't understand how someone could see taking an action that results in a mechanical expression that has less impact on the progress of the game as a direct result of not being an action option taken as part of the character building process, as being disincentive to go outside the action options taken as part of the character building process? - like a spell casting character weighing their options between "I should wrestle that wolf into submission so it accepts me as it's pack!" and "I should cast a spell that makes that wolf do what I want it to." The game incentivizes the latter by making that actually likely to succeed for the character, and thus the player feels a disincentive is applied to the former.

it's between the damned if you do, damned if don't, of those two things which I've told you 4th edition's rules land on improvised actions, and all I've really been able interpret as a response is "I don't see why either of those things is a problem."

Not so noble anymore.

Comment

Made a thread on the RPG subreddit about what “sacred cows” are an essential part of the D&D experience and was unpleasantly surprised to see how many folks think caster supremacy is a core part of the game. Ugh.